Are menial tasks the product of a flawed concept of work?

To what extent is the way we approach work a self-reinforcing prophecy, and what is the potential of breaking through to a more empowering insight?

In his TED video “The way we think is about work is broken” (included at the end of the blog) Barry Schwartz raised in me all sorts of thought provoking questions which I am trying to navigate through.

On the one hand, I agree that work could do more to focus on intrinsic and non-material satisfactions and through doing so increase fulfilment, and enjoyment, and performance in otherwise potentially menial tasks. And I believe that, most people would benefit from, and appreciate, and engage with that non-material component, if it was delivered in a culturally intelligent and sensitive manner. 

On the other hand, I am aware of people for whom laziness, hedonism and materialism appears to be their sole interest. And I am aware of these at both ends of the income spectrum. 

But a key question is whether I believe that the latter is a product of abuse arising out of an institutional construct that sees the world in that way; perhaps the result of ‘teaching’ from previous generations which believed the legacy of Adam Smith’s choice; and experiences which reinforced the inherent prejudices within that? 

Or whether I believe that is just the way some people are?

I do believe that, over centuries, work has been dehumanising. People have traded their labour as a commodity. But I believe that this has been an expedience; a necessity of economically organising and managing the work to be done. I find it difficult to conceive of harvesting a field with scythes, or rivetting the hull of a ship, both with casual and impoverished labour, and finding a way to incentivise non-materially. 

And in this, I have a sense that Adam Smith was not prejudiced but realistic, because I also have a sense that, back then, of the realistic options available to him to organise work, he was not likely to be able to select one that would have had me leaping out of my bed to undertake it.

But that may be because I too am the product of institutional beliefs. And that brings me to the element of the talk that I find most challenging – the idea that the theories we have of human nature actually change human nature itself. 

There is something in me that resonates with the truth in this, particularly with what I know of institutions and how they can change people, but there is also something in me that recognises this is a path to proceed down with caution – partly because I am so fascinated by the idea I can see myself easily getting caught up in it. 

However,whether or not I believe how the situation arose in the first place may be a moot point because of the extent to which automation and AI is removing the routine and the mundane from the working palette. The changing nature of the future of work gives us amazing opportunities to engage with Barry Schwartz’s final question – just what kind of human nature do we want to help design?

For me, the human nature I want to help design is one in which people take greater power over who they are and the impact they have on others.

I want them to engage in the meta-level around themselves and their role, to engage more fully with ‘why?’ and to take creative pride in using their ideas and efforts to fulfil that. I want to lift them to a position where not only can the see their individuality is of value, but where everyone else can see it too. And I believe good use of automation and AI can provide the time and remove the drudgery that holds us back from that point. 

Perhaps in this way Barry Schwartz’s implied goal that all work should be challenging, engaging, stimulating, meaningful and important might become a reality.